Happy Independence Day!

Hey, everybody! The asshats around me are starting to fire off their rockets in the middle of the fire season. Isn't that CUTE? Will we be forced to flee our homes at some ungodly hour, in our pajamas, cats tucked under each arm?

Tune in tomorrow, same time same place, assuming we fucking survive.

Don't you hate that shit? Boom, boom, boom. I guess the people enjoying this stuff have never lived around, you know, actual guns and bombs going off and people getting all shredded and stuff. Because lemme tellya, ever after, your shoulder blades twitch when you hear that noise. I'm expecting shrapnel fragments.

No, I'm not. The neighbours are idiots, but more in a non-malign, stupid, poleaxed, well-meaning, friendly, idiotic sort of way than actual redneck goobers who run around trying to kill people and other living things. They'll burn all our houses down around our ears, then fling themselves on our shoulders and sob about the loss. Dumbfucks.

So Mitt Romney's big fundraiser in London was held by disgraced and recently-resigned Robert Diamond, former head of Barclay's Bank? Do the teabaggers not see any irony whatsoever in the would-be president of the former colonies going to the Mother Country to raise funds from the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE the first Americans fought against to establish this nation? Where are the cries of corruption and foreign interference when Mitt Romney courts the British banking establishment, on fucking INDEPENDENCE DAY? Where are the cries when the biggest contributor to the Republican party is a guy who makes money off whorehouses in China?

Meanwhile, over at the ongoing Republican War On Women Headquarters, we're reliably informed that yon lout in that pitcher up there, one NY State Senator Marty Golden, is finally ready for the onslaught of the 15th century. Someone please tell him it's actually the 21st.

Because this benighted son of a poop-eating bottom-feeder is proposing to WOW the LayDeez of his constituency by teaching them the fine art of "feminine presence." I have no idea what this fucking "feminine presence" is. Is it another term for poontang?

Mind you, this asshole is one of those guys who think the Fair Pay Act doesn't even deserve a hearing, and votes against increasing the minimum wage or giving the Nice Laydeez some fucking maternity leave or elder care leave, paid, so they can do their OTHER fulltime job as well.

But wouldn't you know the Feminazis got to him, and he has now canceled all those nice classes, boo hoo. No word if he's considering any bills that might actually help low-paid women, but at least he's not gonna make taxpayers cough up to teach people how to climb fucking stairs for chrisake.

And that fucking sack of fermenting poop, @RepJoeWalsh, is actually attacking the military service of a woman who lost two legs and an arm rescuing her mates in the Iraq war. Please feel free to contact his office and tell him to go suck dick. Well, no. Be polite. Just because he's an asshole is no reason for anyone else to act that way.

I can't believe this worthless fucking putz. He wouldn't pay to keep his children fed, clothed, and housed. I mean this guy owes $200,000 in child support, and his kids had to go on welfare at one point. That's TAXPAYER MONEY that he shoud have been paying. He went to court to fight his duty to pay for the children he fathered. He would rather run up lawyers' bills than feed his own kids.

And he wants to take care of his constituents? A man who can't take care of his own fucking children can't take care of anyone else. Don't be fooled, peeps. This guy NEEDS TO LOSE his election. He's a swine who won't even pay his own children's bills.

Enough, I'm done ranting. Here's your Libertarian/Republican paradise, all you assholes. You can just suck it, srsly.

Alright, alright, I've been a beast. Here, listen to some terrific music and get ready to spread 'em for the bankers. Geez.

Stumble It!

Women's Rights: Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein

Well, well, well. It appears that the Sudanese courts have weaseled out of facing up to courageous feminist Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein. Ms. al-Hussein was arrested some time ago at a cafe in the city of Khartoum for offending against laws regulating women's clothing. She was wearing loose trousers and a tunic, with a scarf covering her hair. Pretty indecent, huh?

Some ten other women who were arrested with her accepted their sentence of a whipping. Not Ms. al-Hussein. She resigned her position at the UN, thereby forfeiting any political protection she might otherwise be able to claim, and openly stated she would rather take 40,000 lashes than the 40 to which she might have been sentenced if the courts could show her from where their authority to punish women for this supposed crime was derived. She claims that the Qur'an does not sanction the dress she wore, that her clothing was within the bounds of what constitutes modest dress, and that the law, as it is written, is vague and overbroad, constituting discrimination against women who can be arrested and punished under it at the discretion of those paid to enforce such law.

She printed invitations to the foreign and local press to attend her trial and promised that, if sentenced to a whipping, she would send out invitations to that event as well.

Sudan's syariah courts have responded by fining her instead of delivering the promised whipping. Although they have not, of course, responded to her challenge to show wherefrom their authority to whip women such as herself was derived.

Ms. al-Hussein has said that she will not pay the 500-pound ($200) fine, preferring to go to jail for a month instead.

What a woman! Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, you are an inspiration! Women of Sudan, take heart. As long as you have people like Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein among you, you can fight those beardy old mullahs who spend too much time minding other people's business and not enough minding their own. And you can win! Women of America, it's time to let the home-grown Talebangelists know that you won't accept their restrictions on your rights!

And just remember, folks: Religion makes you FUCKING CRAZY~!

Stumble It!

Women's Rights: Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein

If you haven't heard of Lubna Ahmed al-Hussain, you need to.

Ms. Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein is a Sudanese journalist who, until recently, also worked for the United Nations. Why does she no longer work for the U.N., you ask?

Because recently, Ms. al-Hussein was enjoying herself in the company of other women like herself at a restaurant in Khartoum when some 20 or 30 policemen arrested her, and twelve of her compatriots, for the crime of — wearing trousers. Ms. al-Ahmed decided to fight this ridiculous charge, and, when the U.N. moved to protect her as an employee, she resigned her U.N. post to fight it on her own.

Brave does not begin to describe this woman. She faces a whipping — 40 lashes — for her "crime." To demonstrate her commitment to her cause — defying this application of the law as "un-Islamic" and not deriving from the underlying authority for Shari'a law, the Quran — Ms. al-Hussein wore the exact same outfit she was wearing at her arrest to her court hearing. The charges against her, FTA:

[A]rticle 152 of the Sudanese criminal law of 1991 [provides that] women [...] wearing clothes that causes “public uneasiness” [or] a “threat to the Sudanese society values and virtues[...]” [are] subject to 40 lashes in public

The Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) is calling on all NGOs working on human rights issues to get involved.

Ms. al-Hussein plans to fight the charges all the way to the Constitutional Court, if necessary, she says, adding that her plan is to get rid of Article 152, which is more stringently enforced against women, and constitutes an invidious form of discrimination. Ms. al-Hussein has said she is willing to endure 40,000 lashes to fight this discriminatory law.

Some of the other women arrested with her have decided not to fight the charges, and accepted their whipping quietly. Not Ms. al-Hussein. She has printed invitations for the press and human rights activists to witness her trial, and plans to print invitations to the whipping if she loses her court case.

Ms. al-Hussein's bravery has inspired demonstrations by her supporters, according to al-Jazeera. Sudanese police have used tear-gas to disperse her protestors, and the court in which she was to be tried has postponed her case while they verify whether she has legal immunity from prosecution due to her status as an employee of the U.N. Ms. al-Hussein has called this "an attempt to delay the case," since she resigned from the U.N. before the trial specifically to renounce any immunity. FTA:

"If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Quranic verses or hadith [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed] say so. I haven't found them," she said.

Two paws up from La Casa de Los Gatos, Ms. al-Hussein! We hope you win your case and get this foolish law repealed.

Note: Sharia law is only applied in the Muslim north of Sudan. The southern part of the country consists mainly of animists and Christians, and the Islamic legal framework does not apply there.

Stumble It!

Politics: Opinionifying

Douchebag

If you haven't already seen it, Ross Douchehat wrote a sanctimonious, assholistic, ignorant, lame-assed editorial for the New York Times that absolutely reeks of having been pulled out of his bung. For maximum benefit, take blood pressure and psychoactive medication before reading. You'll be glad you did.

Why the Times decides to let this worthless motherfucker opine on abortions he is never going to have is beyond me. In any event, it is my sincere hope that you will give them what-for. Until right-wing hacks like Douchebag disappear off the horizon, this country doesn't have a prayer of moving in a progressive direction. As always, Douchebag shows us that rightwingnuttia is far more interested in having its collective nose up the panties of women and LGBTQ folk than in, say, stopping war, apprehending war criminals, fixing the economy, making the switch from an exploitative, war-based economy to one that puts the environment and all its ecological components first, with health care for all and an end to starvation and poverty, respect for science and preservation of the world we inhabit. So. Fuck Douchebag. Figuratively, at least. At editorial@nytimes.com.

I took it upon myself to start the tirade:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I realize that you may have difficulty scavenging for "Op-Ed" writers, but really, do you HAVE to scrape the bottom of the barrel quite so obviously? Ross Douthat is hardly qualified to speak about so powerful and emotional an issue as abortion, having neither the capacity to ever experience the need for one, nor any other particular skillset that entitles him to make any pronouncements whatsoever on the topic. If you must have someone other than a person with pregnancy capabilities (or "woman," if you prefer, since it appears you are unacquainted with the female sex to any overwhelming degree), then you could at least find a writer who was either an obstetrician or a gynecologist, a psychologist or psychiatrist, a mental health worker of any other type, an educator, an embryologist - good heavens, there must, literally, be hundreds of people you could have selected! And some of them might even be women, which would give them a more realistic and appropriate perspective on pregnancies and the termination thereof.

Instead you chose this rambling idiot who does not back up his yammer with anything worthy of being called "proof." In addition to that, his idiocy is unmitigated by skillful prose, insight, sense, sensibility, meaning, empathy, or even, lacking all else, knowledge. Surely The Gray Lady can find SOMEone, ANYone, with better credentials than this emptyhat. Let me offer myself for the position. I can do no worse. No, wait, my cat could do no worse, so let me nominate her. I assure you, her fetching, winsome visage on the op-ed page, together with a collage of her pawprints and various household items that she has destroyed in her search for art, meaning, or amusement would appeal to your readers far more than the lard-faced apologist of the lower depths that is Douthat.

Sincerely,

thepoliticalcat

Look at that face. Who would want to fuck that pathetic thing? No wonder he can shoot his mouth off about abortions. He will never need one, or even cause anyone else to need one. After all, let's face it, if you thought something that looked like that was gonna crawl into or out of your twat, wouldn't you just give yourself a twatectomy with razor wire?

Stumble It!

Politics: From The Department of

The Stupid Never Stops.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Now that President Obama has announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court vacancy left by resigning Justice David Souter, the Republicans are out in full — or should I say FOOL — force, yipping their little puppy heads off about Judge Sotomayor.

Here, for example, perennial pouty jowled loser Newt (what kind of person has a nickname that means "slimy reptile"?) Gingrich calls Judge Sotomayor a racist. Wow, Newtie, considering that some of your best friends have said things that would make a full-throated racist blush for shame, that takes some brass cojones, buddy. Hope they're nailed on tight, coz something tells me my Latino y Latina buddies will be aiming for those low-hanging fruit right soon. You, the friend of racists galore, do not, buddy, not diss a respected Latina candidate for the Supreme Court by calling her petty names.

Although the GOP itself isn't attacking Sotomayor, relying on these hunchmen, as Frank Zappa might have called them, to do their dirty work, some of them were happy to give Newt the reptile's message a helping, as it were, tweet.

Pat Buchanan went on MSNBC's Hardball to call Judge Sotomayor "an affirmative action pick. [...] Clearly the president was down to four choices, all of them woman, and he picked the Hispanic." Given that Pat has the IQ of a turnip, and would only be admitted to Princeton or Yale as a working janitor, cum grano salis, kids. Consider the fucking source.

Republican Party Leader Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor "a reverse racist" who was appointed by "the greatest living example of a reverse racist" -- Obama. For a list of racist remarks by this paragon of enlightenment and virtue, take your anti-nausea medication and then go here. All I can say is, if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning, I'd hammer in the evening and flatten his peener. Naturally, Rush would be my first choice of sources to help me determine if a person was racist. So not.

Sad loser and perennial Presidential candidate who has yet to win anything, Tom Tancredo, is heaping on the abuse with a shovel. He started off by calling Judge Sotomayor a racist. Considering that he spouted some of the most outrageously racist rhetoric of any Presidential candidate in decades, you'd think the man would have the decency to keep his festering gob buttoned. But that's never how it is with Republicans, is it?

Since that last attack, he's grown even more rabidly spittle-flecked and is now accusing the Judge of being a member of La Raza, which he likens to the KKK. Uh, hello, Tomaso? First of, you're lying, buddy. La Raza is an organization more like Catholic Charities than, say, the Knights of Columbus, or some of the more recondite (and bloody-handed) Catholic organizations, one of which could probably claim you as a member, no? Secondly, I know, and YOU know you're Italian, but you look awfully, uh, "coloured," my friend. And I mean that in a not-so-good way. You know, as in, should a bunch of skinheads be looking for some "Messican" to mess with, and come across you, I reckon you'll be trying to take the bus back from Tijuana, broken limbs and all.

Students at UNC apparently think about as highly of Tancredo as do your hosts at this fine blog. They sent him running for cover during his most recent gob-flabbing visit.

Meanwhile, Senatorial embarrassment Jeff Sessions of Alabama has shot a hole in the GOP banner held up by the whiny "legislating from the bench, waaah, waaah!" faction by agreeing that judges legislate from the bench. Jeff, apparently, didn't read the GOP talking points. Maybe he doesn't know how.

ICHC Catertainment

Other Republicans, having been bitten badly by the Irony Vampire, have taken to referring to Judge Sotomayor as the Democratic version of Harriet Miers. It's a sad day indeed when the worst thing you can say about your opponent is that he picked someone who's kinda sorta maybe like the dreadful twit your dreadful twit of a leader picked for the same position, once.

"I would point you to the Harriet Miers nomination under the second President Bush," Levey said. "She was also many people felt and intellectual lightweight, picked because she was a woman, people felt. And even though Republicans controlled the senate, she ultimately had to withdraw. And that could happen here. This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified. I could certainly see red and purple state Democrats gawking at it and she may very well have to withdraw her nomination."

— Curt Levey, executive director, Committee for (Conservative) Justice.

Yeah, right, Mr. Levey. How insulting can you get? Harriet Miers went to some cowpat school followed by some cowpat law school. Judge Sotomayor did her undergraduate work at Princeton, and got her law degree at Yale. (Naturally, the shrieking harpies of the right (and perenially wrong) wing will start beating that tired old drum about how Sotomayor, like Obama, got an affirmative action free ride to two of the top schools in the world. Let me remind them that the competition for those schools is intense, and (1) they're not government-funded, so they are not required to implement affirmative action; (2) even if they do so, they do not lower their standards to accept intellectually deficient candidates for reasons relating to the exoticism of their colour, background, or ethnicity. In other words, they might admit Latina or African-American candidates because they want a more diverse campus, but they pick the best African-American and Latina candidates, not the worst, and not the average mooks, either. Moreover, both schools are sufficiently intellectually rigorous that a candidate who did not work hard and did not have the intellectual heft required would soon drop out. Neither Princeton nor Yale give "charity" grades, except to the children of their alumni who donate huge sums. You know, like Gee Dumbya Bush.)

Also, not to belabour the point, unless it's on Levey's head, not one Democrat has hitherto said one critical word about Judge Sotomayor. They seem to like her. So do the proles. Wrong again, Levey. Miers was so bad, even the party faithful threw up their hands in horror. Sotomayor is so superior to Miers that their names should never occur in the same sentence. But tell Mr. Levey that.

From the article:

On Tuesday, Fox News’s Andrew Napolitano claimed on his radio show that Sotomayor “has a reputation for not being a very hard worker.”

Damn, Faux Noise sure does love that stereotype of the "lazy Latina," huh? Someone should take those mouthy shills out into the fields and have them pick our lettuce and tomatoes for whatever pathetic nickel-and-dime wage we're paying our Latino/Latina field workers these days. Doesn't it chap your hide that some soft-palmed greaseball who has never done any work harder than pulling their pud in their whole fucking life has the gall to opine on someone else's hardworkingness or lack thereof? Faux Noise, y'all should buy your shills a copy of Syed Husain al-Atas, The Myth of The Lazy Native. But what am I saying? Y'all lack the intellectual heft for that.

Also from the article, some pathetic weeny commenter waves his around:

“Conservative politico” likely working on the nomination: “Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a ‘bully’ who ‘does not have a very good temperament’ and who ‘abuses lawyers’ with “inappropriate outbursts.’”

Wait, what??? I thought Republicans were all like, "We hate hate hate dem lawyers"?? Don't I remember a ton of Republican political ads accusing various Democrats of "being in the pocket of trial lawyers"? And quivering-jowled Republicans wailing endlessly about how lawyers were the veritable scum of the earth, ate their own children for breakfast, had been filmed killing puppies, kitties, and bunnies, and were Satan's very own spawn? So, now they're crying because Judge Sotomayor "bullies" lawyers? Hello? I R confoozed.

ICHC for teh Catertainment

Also, gee, after Nino Scalia flips off the press repeatedly and mutters something sounding suspiciously like "Va'fan'culo" while giving the sign of "up your booty with a ten-foot pole," "Conservative politico" might want to quit flapping his gob about suitable judicial temperament and what-all. We won't even raise the Long Dong Silver and pubic hair on a Coke can business of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Nino Scalia's "suitable" judicial temperament

Mind you, it does sort of shoot a hole in the right, I mean, wrong wing's arguments against the judge when some right-wing shills and whores (some of whom work for the same organizations as the decriers)admit that Judge Sotomayor brings very impressive credentials to the position. More impressive, in fact, than any other candidate over the past 100 years:

Coming from a housing project in the Bronx, Sotomayor ended up graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton. She also was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. Sotomayor then went to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) said on Fox News this morning that of all the nominees, Sotomayor “brings the most in terms of judicial experience — in terms of serving on a federal court — in 100 years.”

Anyone want to raise the case of Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White? Methinks Justice White's primary qualification for the position, other than some less-than-memorable lawyering, was, um, having been a football star, kinda? OK, Whizzer (urk) White had impressive academic qualifications, but no more impressive than Sotomayor's, with the sole exception of the Rhodes Scholarship. In fact, she outdid him, in that she accepted editorship of both the Yale Law Journal and the World Public Order Studies. Moreover, Sotomayor has been a judge for nearly two decades — which is more judicial experience than Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, or most of the rest of the court had when appointed.

Matt Yglesias, writing over at ThinkProgress, pokes another hole in the tattered Republican argument:

I recall a lot of issues being raised during the Samuel Alito confirmation fight, but at that time I don’t remember anyone raising questions about the intelligence of a Princeton/Yale Law graduate who’d done time on an Appeals Court.

But, see, it's DIFFERENT because Alito has dangly bits! He's a boy, she's a girl, end of story. Or something. Media Matters is keeping track of all the lies being trumpeted by various crooks and liars in attacking Judge Sotomayor. No blame if you no clicky the linkies. It made me so mad I had to lie down with a glass of wine and a book of pretty pitchers for twenty minutes.

Cthulhu Hats For Cats

Meanwhile, even as these spawn of Cthulhu* bay and howl about how Sotomayor's every remark and every blood corpuscle is all about race, race, race, therefore rendering her unfit to genuflect in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court to such worthies as Scalia, who is reported and demonstrated to have flipped reporters off in public, including immediately after leaving a church (Nino! How could you!). Or Alito, who said the following:

In an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, who had asked Alito to discuss how his personal experiences shows that "he cared for the little guy," Alito said that his family"s experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases.

Alito: "And that"s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let"s say, someone who is an immigrant " and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases " I can"t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn"t that long ago when they were in that position.

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

And, in fact, if y'all remember that far back, when Alberto Gonerzales was nominated for the AG position, Republicans couldn't make enough noise about his Hispanicity. (Yeah, I made that word up, so what.)

From the article:

"Look, this is not just any nomination," Hatch, then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman declared on February 1, 2005. "This is a nomination for the Attorney General of the United States of America. This is the first Hispanic ever nominated for that position, or for any of the big four positions in the Cabinet of any President. ... We work with Hispanic people all over America who are every bit as devoted to our country as any citizen who has ever been in this country. I personally love Hispanic people. Frankly, I know my friends in the Hispanic community, and Hispanic people all over America, are watching this debate, and they are sensing something very unfair going on here."

Of course, Gonerzales had no qualifications for anything, except maybe dogcatcher, unlike Sotomayor, who is a highly qualified individual. We all know the Republicans like to keep their pet "cullud" folks around for patronization purposes, and prefer that these be singularly stupid or lacking in accomplishments, as it helps them to bolster their arguments against equal rights for people who are not rich, old, white, and, preferably, male. Methinks Judge Sotomayor would not put up with patronizing attitudes. She probably scares the holy shit out of all those head-patting yobs of the Republican party, no?

Scotusblog, a blog maintained by a large group of practising attorneys and others with some actual knowledge of the legal profession, has a heartening take on the Judge:

Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.

Scotusblog decries the attacks on previous nominees and makes its case in reasonable terms. You might find the post eminently readable. It also cautions those attacking Judge Sotomayor to remember that there is a cost to their insubstantive attacks, with which point I agree heartily in fact, but would hope that the overwhelming pother of idiots currently dictating the fate of the Republican Party will pay absolutely no attention to the voice of reason and continue their headlong rush over the cliff.

The White House has not been silent in the face of Republican noisemaking. And Judge Sotomayor herself is not one to take crap from anybody, so Nino, consider yourself warned. Vanity Fair has a nice whup upside the head of the baying few in their current issue.

If you're wondering what YOUR role might be in this unfolding drama, consider these words of wisdom from a commenter at HuffPo:

Michellemlm

To those who are angry about this:

Our representatives aren't reading the comment sections on here. Write your rep in your district, especially the republican reps and let them know how you feel about Sotomayer's record and how you feel about the attacks on her. Let them know that your vote will count on election day. here's the link to contact your senator my email, phone or mail. Activism means taking action.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

She's right, yaknow. Gedoff your ass and write those jerks, not just one email but one email per day, or one letter or postcard per day for the next four, five, or six weeks. They won't listen without a couple of righteous whacks upside the head with the trademarked Golden Bat o'Clue. It's your job to give it to 'em.



* Longtime commenter and friend McBlogget insisted in a private missive that no reference to Cthulhu was acceptable without a picture of a Cthulhu hat; and even found an example of same, for which reason we forthwith edited this post. Note that Cthulhu appears to be eating the cat, whose expression of long-suffering patience has won our admiration.

Stumble It!

Politics: Trailer Trash

Thanks to pain and meds, posting is light today, but I just had to share this with you.

Levi Johnson, erstwhile babydaddy to Sarah Palin's daughter, is now on Tyra Banks' show telling the troof about that hot unholy mess. Now, La Casa de Los Gatos very very rarely pays attention to the hoohaw and foofaraw involving celebrities, and Mrs. Palin, who has the IQ of a root vegetable, falls into the category of celebrity, rather than "political entity."

So mostly we've avoided slinging snark at the silly bitch. Gawd knows she's plenty capable of shooting both feet into Swiss cheese without help.

But this has gone far enough. She trashed all us city-dwellers with her "small-town values" crap. She insinuated that even the hypocritical HolyBook bashers of McCain's campaign weren't good enough for her to pray with. Pretty nervy for a follower of Jesus, eh? Jesus prayed with prostitutes and publicans, thieves and outcastes, Romans (enemies of the Jewish people), Samaritans, beggars, and smelly, uneducated fishermen, for cryin' out. Apparently a class of people not good enough for our girl Sairy Failin'.

She flapped her gob about abstinence-ONLY sex education (miseducation, rather) and continues to yawp endlessly about how she's "pro-life," when what she really means is, any slut who opens her legs had better be punished, and her children, if any, with her, by having to feed, school, and care for said children without the tools, or with inadequate tools.

Well, I've had enough of Miss Holier-than-thou. Hey, Sairy, we're not all stupid dumbfucks with a limited attention span, like you, OK? We know quite well that you "eloped" with Todd, and your first child was one of those "early" babies, you know, born a mere eight months after Todd put the cigar band on your finger (but probably a little over nine months after he popped yer cherry.

Well, now we find that Sairy Failin's "small-town values" include letting your underage teenage daughter shack up with her boyfriend under your own roof. Interesting thing about that, Sairy, is most of my fellow urbanites did not elope into a shotgun marriage. Sure, they had sex, but they also had sex education, and chose not to rush into a marriage based on the presence of an unplanned infant. And most of my urban contemporaries don't believe their underage daughters should be shacking up with their boyfriends. In fact, I don't know a single parent of a teenage daughter who allows the boyfriend to sleep over in the daughter's bedroom.

A bit too wholesome for your taste, huh? Welp, now the wedding's been called off, Bristol has a sprog screaming down the house, and her ex-almost-MiL, a known meth dealer, is arguing that her son should have a share in raising his child.

Levi? You don't know what you're getting into. Get a DNA test, kid. For all you know, that kid is someone else's. After all, according to (dubious) sources, your ex had quite the reputation as a party girl.

In other thrilling Paiin news, Paiin's sister-in-law Diane was recently busted on burglary charges, for breaking into someone's home for the second time in a row to steal money. The cherry on this particular cake? She took her four-year-old daughter with her and left the kid outside in the car. Sweet Christ!

Holy Mother of God, is this what small-town values means? Is this what John McCain means by "country first"? Oh, wait, Undeniable Liberal over at WTF Is It Now? corrects me on what McPain meant.

In other news, after rushing to distance herself from corrupt windbag and felon Ted Stevens, former Senator of Alaska, Sairy Failin' wants Stevens back at his post, taking huge bribes and building roads and bridges to nowhere.

I don't know what John McCain was thinking, bringing this sleazy grifter and her trailer-trash friends and relatives into the spotlight, but their fifteen minutes is like, SO up. Please, you thieving, lying, ass-shaking, makeup-slathering, clothes-stealing, money-grubbing, tasteless, senseless bunch of fools, just step off the national stage. Get the hell outa Dodge, yaknow? Because I canNOT take this anymore.

I don't even dare to ask what next. With this crowd, it'll be our joint and sundry worst fucking national nightmare, I swear.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Women and McCain

Okay, apparently the women of PUMA don't give a damn about reproductive choice for women (see it for yourself at Hillary is 44 dot org, to which we refuse to link) because they're all older than Methusaleh and their reproductive bits have dried up and fallen out and are therefore not in danger from the McFail people.

But our understanding is that women of many different political stances believe that while abortion should be rare, it should also be available if a woman's health will be negatively affected by carrying a pregnancy to term. We personally know of two women who had to terminate very-much-wanted and planned pregnancies because of health issues, and while they were very sad to do so (as we pointed out, they very much wanted the pregnancy), to have attempted to carry to term would have either killed or crippled the mother and the outcome for the fetus was not much better.

Apparently, John McFail doesn't think that a mother's health should be a consideration:



La Casa de Los Gatos is currently betting that McFail has just lost the election.

Stumble It!

Politics: CA Prop 4 — The Parental Notification Act

Guest blogger and Fount of Wisdom (as well as Feline Pope-in-Exile) Milagrito opines on the fate of this doubtful legislation being supported by Mormons and homophobes who are trying to change California's political landscape.

Milagrito's Campaign slogan

No on Parental Notification

Fellow kitties, I must address a topic that may prove controversial and maybe even lose me a few votes. I would really like to hear your reactions, whether or not you agree with me. I am urging any of you whose humans are California voters to make them vote NO on Proposition 4 in the November election, and any non-California voters to reject similar measures in their states.

Prop 4 is what is called a “notification law” and it’s about abortion. Some states have passed similar laws, but California voters have twice defeated similar measures. The basic proposed law states that any teenager seeking an abortion is subject to a parental notification requirement, meaning that if a pregnant teenager wants an abortion, they have to be prepared to have a letter posted to their parents telling on them.

These laws, to be constitutional, generally have what is called a “judicial bypass” provision. A teenager can go to a court — an excruciatingly embarrassing and intrusive requirement — and explain to a judge why she doesn’t want to have her parents involved, and a judge can issue consent to the abortion. As a law cat, I’m appalled by the high level of proof a teen is expected to present to the courts under Prop 4, either of their ability to make their own decision or of a negative family situation. The burden of proof is only slightly less than that required to convict someone of murder, and higher than the burden of proof required to award someone millions of dollars in a damage suit.

The new California ballot proposal has a further, more toxic alternative. The teenager can inform the doctor that her parents would sexually, physically or emotionally abuse her if her pregnancy and desire for an abortion were known. The doctor can then notify an alternate adult relative, telling this relative of the accusations against the parents, and also forwarding the accusation to a government agency for investigation.

These laws supposedly force the teen to turn to her parents for their wisdom and support. These laws also recognize that parents aren’t always wise and supportive. But instead of offering the teen alternative adult support in the form of counseling and compassionate medical care, they instead require her to become her parents’ accuser in exchange for the desired abortion. Her choice is to face the wrath of the parents (who might well react emotionally and hurtfully even if they are not cruel people) or to smear their reputation by report to the government.

Some proponents say this law will prevent sexual predators from covering up their abuse by forcing teens to have abortions. However, even a teenager who has been abused or exploited is entitled to her privacy and dignity, and to lodge an accusation when she is emotionally ready to do so. To force her to choose between being dragged through the courts or social services bureaucracy or face possibly abusive reactions by parents, is to pile stress, confusion and pain on a vulnerable teen. It is atrociously cruel.

I fear that teens would have a hell of a time navigating this legal mess. Nothing in this coercive system helps teens make good decisions. I can even imagine that a desperate teen, afraid to face her parents and embarrassed to tell her story to judge, might report abuse that never happened, just to get the abortion she wants. A teen, especially a middle-class kid whose family has never tangled with the law or the social service system, might have no idea what legal nightmare might be unleashed on her family if she says that, yes, her parents would emotionally abuse her if she told them she was pregnant. The law also blithely supposes that there is another adult who can be notified instead of the now-vilified parents. What if the entire family belongs to the same strict religion? What will happen to the family when Mom finds out that her sister knew all along, and didn’t tell her because of her supposed failures as a parent? How will the aunt feel being asked to keep this secret? What happens to the teen’s privacy when the social worker arrives at the door to find out what’s wrong with the family?

Kids have different rates of maturity, and families have different degrees of dysfunction. My Mama knows lots of girls from normal families who had abortions as teenagers and never told their parents, not wanting to upset them and get grounded for life. They went on to college and professions, and married and had families and suffered no fallout whatever, because they didn’t believe that abortion was wrong, but having a baby you couldn’t care for was very wrong. If I was a parent of a teenage kitten, I would much rather they came to me, but if they didn’t, I would want them to have somewhere to turn for competent medical and psychological help.

But there are other kinds of families, too, where people love each other but where parents are from other countries and cultures, or are very conservative, and the kids sometimes have values that clash with their parents’. Where parents think that punishment is an appropriate response. Where a pregnancy can have a devastating effect on the relationship of a daughter with her parents and perhaps affect a girl’s future. I can’t help but feel that there are situations where it’s best the parents don’t know. Even an immature teenager may be able to better evaluate her own situation than a court or agency.

Finally, the proposed law attacks doctors. Doctors would be expected to file paperwork on each abortion performed. They would be susceptible to suit by parents who claimed they were not properly notified. The exposure to lawsuits is precisely the reason many doctors are leaving high-risk medicine, such as high-risk obstetrics. This proposition seems aimed at scaring doctors away from abortions. Its most outrageous provision is that the parents can sue a doctor who performs an abortion on their child any time up to four years after the child reaches the age of majority. That means if a doctor performed an abortion on a patient who was sixteen, the parents can sue him up until she turns 22 — and the daughter can’t stop them. Only major felonies have statutes of limitations this long, and the result will be that even more doctors will refuse to perform abortions.

I cannot find an ounce of compassion or sense in this proposal. It needs to lose.

ThePoliticalCat thanks Milagrito for his clear, rational post on this issue. This would also be a good place to point out that in some cultures, a girl who has lost her virginity (one who, for example, needs an abortion) has sullied her family's honor, which can only be recovered by killing said girl. For those who think this doesn't happen in Western countries in this day and age, may we kindly point them to the story of Banaz Mahmod, murdered in the UK. Alternatively, consider Samana Siddiqui's interesting juxtaposition of information about honor killings of women in the Islamic countries to murders of women in the US and Canada. Or read Faux News' bigoted but nevertheless essentially factually correct report on honor killings in the US.

La Casa de Los Gatos would like to take this opportunity to point out that honor killings are not a religious, but a cultural practice. Thus, so called honor killings are very rare in Islamic countries in most of East and South-east Asia, but common in Pakistan, for example, and, sadly more so these days, in Iraq.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Calling A Lie A Lie

Where have all the student protesters gone? Well, some of them are alive and kicking ass out at the University of Iowa, apparently.

Take a look at the article, and if you support their actions, consider writing to the following pillars of the mass media. FTA:

Note from Stephen Fox: I think these students (Megan Felt, Hannah Rounds, Laura Kacere, Marni Steadham, Robin Berman, Dan Rathjen, David Goodner, Justin Feinstein, Brooke Bachelder, Lara Elborno, Naomi Prager, and Anthony Carter) deserve our commendation for their Gandhian courage and their intelligence to do what they did.

This could be in the form of letters to the editor of

1. Daily Iowan, the University Paper (diopletters@gmail.com)

2. Iowa City Press Citizen (opinion@press-citizen.com)

3. Des Moines Register (letters@dmreg.com)

4. Cedar Rapids Gazette (news@gazettecommunications.com)

plus five more listed here. (this is a "Live Blue" list of Newspapers in Iowa)

Thank you, students! May many more join your ranks and call these vile liars out at every opportunity.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Action Item and Entertainment

From ICHC, your source of all lolcattery

Diarist cloudwatcher over at DailyKos has this excellent idea. La Casa de Los Gatos reads DailyKos fairly regularly, but is not a member. Los Gatos, as you know, are not herd or pack animals. They prefer to be solitary in their pursuits. In the event, it's a simply brilliant idea, and for those of our visitors who are not DKos members here is the gist of it: Given that Palin is as anti-feminist as they come, those who disagree with her positions on women's right to choose and to their bodily autonomy ought to donate $10 (or more if you can afford it) to Planned Parenthood in Palin's name. PP has a policy of sending thank-you cards to the person being "honoured" by such donations. Cloudwatcher requests that you use this link, and adds:

You'll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the "in Sarah Palin's honor" card. I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:

McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
Arlington , VA 22202

PS - Make sure you use that link above or choose the pulldown of
Donate--Honorary or Memorial Donations, not the regular "Donate
Online"

And, of course, in the interest of sharing teh love, please — pass it on!


Gee, it looks as if Oldy McMoldy is one of those who is condemned to repeat history. Or at the very least a Nixon wannabe.

For those too young to get the Nixon reference, back in the old days when "freedom of speech" was not just an electioneering slogan for lying Rethuglicans, politically hip folks wore T-shirts with the slogan "Nixon is a Coxsacker" after the little humpling tried to fire Independent Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was tasked with investigating Li'l Richie's High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Same bullshit, different Cox. Someone needs to tell Oldy McMoldy that he can't fire this Cox.

Oh, dear. Emperor Jor Jee has issued an official statement in support of Cox.

In other really shitty news for Johnny McCan't (or should that be McCunt? We hear he's awfully fond of describing his wife as one):

• One of our favouritest Republicans, Chuck Hagel, stated today that McCain's Veep pick is not experienced enough to be teh Prez;
  
  
• Alert reporters (yes, yes, pretty much an oxymoron, lately) noticed that McDodoBird appears not to know who the Spanish Prime Minister is (ouch!);
  
  
• McCain's Veep pick puts herself at the head of the ticket;
  
  
• Veep-to-be outdraws Oldy McMoldy;
  
  
• Those rallies aren't that well-attended anyway (that's gotta hurt, Johnny my man);
  
  
• KKKarl "I blossomed from a Turd" Rove admits that McCain's Veep pick was purely politically motivated and not the most qualified candidate for the position (Karl, ya better get a food taster and a 24-hr bodyguard, dude);
  
  
• An Alaskan blogger is calling teh Veep-to-be (or not; she might go the way of Carly Fiorina) out on her lies and slanders;
  
  
• Veep-to-be, whose ties to bizarre Christian cults are already causing consternation among both Christians and atheists (not to mention, we're sure, adherents of other religions), is ascribing her successful run for Governor of Alaska to some weirdo who claims to hunt witches.
  
  Um, yeah, whatever. Sounds like she'd make a great running mate for Bobby Jindal, the exorcist governor of Louisiana, assuming that either of them survive the recent political ebb and flow.
  
  
• More lies from the Veep-to-be uncovered.

Remember, folks, you're not allowed to elect more than one nutcase every decade So buh-bye, John.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Women and Palin/McCain

Do you have a mother? A sister? A daughter? A lover or girlfriend or fiance of the female persuasion? Any female relative or friend that you care about?

Because if you do, you'll want to know the following about Sarah Palin and John McCain:



The idea that a rape victim should have to pay for forensic testing in uncovering a crime against public order is simply outrageous. Do we bill the estates of homicide victims for the forensic testing done? Do we bill victims of assault and battery or white collar crimes for the work done to uncover such crimes? We do not. What makes rape victims more appropriate targets for such revictimization?

Until Palin became the mayor of Wasilla, the Alaskan authorities paid for rape testing forensic kits. Only after she became mayor did the police begin charging victims.

Bonus fact: Sarah Palin charged the government the per diem cost they were required to pay her when she was traveling on the government's business — for staying home. That's called fraud, or theft, and if you pull that crap on your corporate employers, not only will they fire you but they will recover that money, whether by withholding from your wages or suing you as needed.

Her husband and children also charged for their travels — from their home in Wasilla to Juneau, where the governor worked. Total amount charged by family? Approximately $44,000.00. Add to that the approximately $17,000.00 charged by Palin, for a total of roughly $50,000.00.

For someone who earns a salary of $125K per year, owns five properties, and has a husband who makes a pretty decent wage himself, it seems Mrs. Palin could have kept her grubby hands out of the state's moneypots. It's not like she needed the money so badly, after all. Perhaps all those hair dye jobs and many pairs of rimless glasses (at $375 or more a pop) are burning a hole in her bank account.

And, after all, her per diem charges alone would have covered the cost of all the rape kits used during her stint as mayor.

No wonder McCain loves her. Neither one of them has a feminist molecule in their bodies.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: A Summary of Facts, Part II

Heeeeere's Johnny!

Today, we continue with our point-by-point examination of the Palin/McCain campaign platform, in brief:

• You say, with regard to "the sanctity of life" — a phrase which appears to mean the sanctity of zygotal life rather than, say, the lives of adult human women — "During more than five years as a POW in Vietnam, John McCain experienced the worst assaults on human dignity imaginable."
  
  Gee, John, how many sins will your POW status cover? You've already flogged this goddamn meme to death, guy. If there is anyone left on the planet who doesn't know that you were a POW, we're willing to bet that said individual has no TV, radio, telephone, computer, or access to the internet; does not read the papers or is both blind and deaf, in addition to never having learned braille; and lives in the middle of the Kalahari or the Gobi desert.
  
  At least you didn't say "I was tortured." Because, as you well know, having voted to allow the CIA to use torture, what the Vietnamese did to you did not qualify as torture, according to the Bush administration. And you support Bush. You voted for him 95 per cent of the time in 2007.
  
  You go on to explain: "Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned [...]." Do the women who plan to vote for you know this? Do they know that they will be condemning themselves, their daughters, and their granddaughters to back-alley abortions? Do you really want to see this happen again? Your response to women's right to choose if they will carry a pregnancy to term is to repeal Roe v. Wade and turn the decision over to state law, with the understanding that you will then "find new ways to empower and strengthen" the anti-choice movement on the state level."
  
  You don't want insurance companies paying for contraception. You won't fund programs that will keep teenagers like Bristol Palin, your Veep candidate's daughter, from getting pregnant. You won't fund sex education for teens. It's almost as if you want to treat all women as breeding sows, John.
  
  And what will you do with all those unwanted children, John? You either failed to vote or voted against all these programs that might help young parents of an unwanted child, or the child itself. So, you want to force their mothers to birth them, but you don't want to give their mothers any insurance for them, or help them heat their homes, or give their moms and dads a little help with unemployment insurance. But you voted FOR "welfare reform," which is another way of cutting down help to poor people who might have children.
  
  You claim adoption is the solution. Yet, with so many American children awaiting adoption, you and your wealthy heiress wife went to Bangladesh to adopt, and have only adopted one child, when you could easily adopt a dozen more without feeling the pinch.
  
  And you say "Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain's value system [...]." Where's the decency in bringing unwanted children onto an overcrowded planet, John? Where's the human compassion in cutting off funding so the parents can't afford to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, or keep their children warm?
  
  As for self-sacrifice — your Veep candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, just recently attacked community organizers. According to the media, she's a Christian. Perhaps you need to remind her, John, that Jesus was a community organizer — and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
  
  
• On the issue of energy, you say "John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy."
  
  John, we're not stupid. We allowed deregulation of the financial markets and a "market-based system" approach. Look where we are now. We allowed deregulation of the food and drug markets. For at least two years we've had nonstop horror stories about the contamination of our food and drug supply. We know you've never held a real job in your life, John, so let us explain a few things to you.
  
  Businessmen go into business to make money; not to improve the health and welfare of their fellow citizens or fellow humans. A market-based system rewards the most rapacious businesspeople, not the most careful stewards of our resources. We have already caught you and your fellow Republicans out in some dreadful lies regarding the advantageousness of drilling in our beautiful coastal waters and nature reserves. You want nuclear energy. Can we put nuclear plants next to your multimillion dollar homes, John? If not, where can we put them? In the gated communities of the rich? Or in the vulnerable communities of the poor?
  
  Have you forgotten Three Mile Island, John? Have you forgotten Love Canal? Nobody wants nuclear plants or the resulting byproducts in their neighbourhood, John. If you'll set an example of that self-sacrifice you praise so highly by putting a nuclear plant next to each of your homes, maybe others will agree to do the same. Right now, John, your energy plan is based on giveaways to big corporations and gouging the poor and working people of the country.
  
  
• On the issue of ethics, you say "America needs leadership devoted to the public interest, not the special interest [...]."
  
  That's nice. That's what we'd all like to see. So, how come you had 60 lobbyists raising money for you in January? And look how many of them are actually working for your campaign! Even while you were calling lobbyists "birds of prey," you had 160 of them working for your campaign.
  
  Now, because you've never had a real job in your life, John, having lived off first the taxpayer, then your rich wife, let us tell you something. Nobody gives anybody anything for free. Especially not businesspeople. If a businessman gives you a penny he expects two to five pennies in return. So these 160 lobbyists who are working to get you elected? They want something back, John. Salaries are not enough. So what are you planning to give them, John? Because if you're sitting in the Oval Office, whatever ROI they're getting is not coming out of your pockets but ours. We the people. We the taxpayers.
  
  It sure doesn't look like these lobbyists are trying to get you elected for the sake of the people. They have a stake in this. And from here, it don't look good.
  
  In the meantime, could you speak to Ms. Palin about "the willful setting aside of taxpayer dollars for the pet projects of special interests"? Because there's a certain bridge in Alaska that she was supporting when she ran for governor. And now she's saying she was against it. But she kept the money for it anyway.
  
  And then there's that stadium she got the city of Wasilla to agree to build, for which she raised the sales tax, but due to her failure to do her homework, she left the city $20 million in debt. And that was after hiring lobbyists to get the city $27 million in earmarks (or "pork," to use your favourite word, John). For a town of 6,000 people? $47 million dollars? Sounds a lot like pork, John.
  
  
• As for natural heritage, you say you have a "commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space," and that you have been "a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore."
  
  Is that right, John? Because at the RNC, all we could hear was "Drill, baby, drill." Or perhaps those drunk Young Republicans were referring to your Veep candidate. In a non-sexist manner, of course. How do you reconcile clean air and water with offshore drilling, John? Remember that week you were going to make a speech on an oil rig, and then Hurricane Gustav warnings forced you to drop that photo-op? Or maybe it was the oil spill on the Mississippi River?

Sorry, John, and to all our regular readers, a heartfelt apology. Our waders were becoming encrusted with the bullshit through which we had to schlep. We can't read this crap no more.

Final word to John: Frankly, we think you picked the wrong Palin.



Tomorrow, we discuss John's Veep pick, with analysis.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: More Entertainment!

Ms. Manitoba's favourite — well, one of Ms. M's favourite — comedians, the incredibly funny, talented, deadpan Samantha Bee explains why she will be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin:



Liquid Alert: Please put away any sprayable food or drink before viewing.

Stumble It!

Politics and Entertainment

Jed Report does it again:



And Hillary apparently does not care for the way Oldy McMoldy's supporters refer to her. (Honestly — first they call her a bitch, then they invite her over for drinks? Get real.) Besides, McCain is the guy who joked about Hillary's then-teenaged daughter, "Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Lemme tellya you wizened, wrinkly, pasty-faced little prick, if you insulted my kid like that you'd be lucky to still have one of your two heads.

In the event, the RNC is sponsoring a party for Hillary supporters tonight, and they're picking up the tab. Go run it up for them, if you want. From The Nation:

Details:

RNC "Happy Hour For Hillary"

8:30 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. MDT
Paramount Cafe
519 16th Street

And, by the bye — once again, Jon Stewart and the topnotch team at The Daily Show nail it, in welcoming the Republicans to their convention in Minnesota:

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Creepy Entertainment

Oh, dear. Scott Bateman, over at Salon, decided to take Oldy McMoldy's speech at the bikers' convention in Sturgis (famous for its topless, and sometimes bottomless, contenders for the title of Miss Buffalo Chip) and animate it.

First off, Buffalo Chip does not create a pleasant mental image. It makes us think of a pile of steaming dung, to be honest.

Secondly, what kind of man offers his wife to a screaming crowd of gross-looking guys holding up signs like "Show Ur Tits 4 John McCain"? Is that respect for marriage? Is that "family values"? Is that respect for the woman who funds your political ambitions, the mother of your children?

Thirdly, we don't know whether the crowd turned up to see McMoldy — he was opening for Kid Rock. McMoldy, is that the only way you can draw a crowd?



At any rate, Bateman tried to make a little entertainment here, and did a good job. But the creep factor is undeniable.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: Republican "Family Values"

What is wrong with these people? First Rude Ghouliani had his pedophile priest. Now John McCain has his teenager-raping "theocon."

Oldy McMoldy has been asked by three religious groups to remove Deal W. Hudson from his campaign, but has refused. The guy is a total creep. He blames his sexual abuse of a freshman on campus on "homosexual" priests. WHAT? Did some gay member of the clergy slip you Viagra and hold a gun to your head so you could get somebody's teenage daughter drunk and slip her the old salami? You disgusting PoS. How did the homosexual clergy force you to get some little girl drunk and force your disgusting ancient flabby wrinkly self on her?

Naturally, Bull Donohue, that patriarchal putz who gets his flabby jowls in a pother anytime anyone even hints that maybe, just maybe, he is not the sole arbiter of what his Deity would like the world to be (and a pretty hateful, nasty vision it is, Donohue) thinks that his criminal friend Hudson's apology suffices to pardon his crime.

Do you think saying sorry should let you off for rape? How about murder? We can't imagine any Catholic who takes their religion seriously letting either of these ancient bigots represent Catholicism to the world at large. Shame on you both, you vipers and serpents! Crawl back under a rock and let God, if there is one, speak for itself.

Incidentally, the victim in question was an 18-year-old freshman at the college where Hudson was a tenured professor. She was clearly a troubled teen, often initiating conversations about her personal life with him. Some of his supporters are alleging that she seduced him, or came on to him, or was an adult woman who flirted with her professor. This is all balderdash. If it was your daughter, we guarantee you'd be singing a different tune.

Recent studies have shown that teenagers' brains are still developing, and that they might not have the same understanding of concepts like risk and responsibility as adults. Teenage brains are also more susceptible to substance abuse. Why a tenured professor of philosophy fails to understand this is incomprehensible to us.

Moreover, anyone in a professional relationship with young people — teachers, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers &mdash knows that there are certain acts that are considered more reprehensible in people who have authority and responsibility over our young. Sex with your underage charges tops that list. How could this professor have failed to absorb that lesson?

Finally, when an adult and a youth are involved in something society considers wrong, it is the adult, not the youth, who bears the greater burden of responsibility. Even if that girl had stripped naked before him and begged him for sex, as a responsible adult, we expect him to understand that the girl was troubled and to immediately leave her presence and never again be alone with her in order that temptation would not arise. You'd think a Christian, a practising Catholic, a professor of philosophy would understand these concepts. And this is the man John McCain selects to be in charge of outreach to Catholics?

Stumble It!

Human Rights: Children

La Casa de Los Gatos generally skirts children's issues because they're so upsetting. We do not believe reproduction is a right. It is, or ought to be, a privilege. Because if you do not want children with all your body, heart, and mind, you really shouldn't have them.

As we said recently, our Mummy's popped her clogs, which means we're free to state a few things that we couldn't risk saying while she was alive. For what it's worth, she had a terrible relationship with all her children, two of whom haven't spoken to her in decades. She had children because "that's what you do when you're married." Surely, condoms and birth control, even of a rudimentary sort, were available even back in the dark ages when she was born. She liked babies in the simpering way that some women affect. Babies, after all, are like flesh-and-blood dolls, to be dressed and cooed at. They're not ambulatory so you can dump them when they bore you. If you have enough money you can hire other people to deal with their screams and tears.

Of course, when you're getting paid to look after someone else's child, you are under no obligation (except a general, moral one) to treat it well. Basically, you can get away with pretty much anything, and no matter what people say only their own children are attractive, everyone else's children are a royal pain in the arse. So it comes as no surprise that people, whether biologically related to a child or not, often abuse children. They're a lot of work, kids. From the day they're born till the day they leave home, they require cleaning, feeding, amusing, managing. You have to plan their activities for them, take them to school or to the doctor or to camp or daycare. You have to make sure they're clean, fed, and healthy regardless of your own condition.

And they're yours for life. If your 50-year-old kid has to move home because they've lost their job and their home, well, what do you do? You take them in, of course. So, if you're not ready to devote a substantial part of your life to putting someone else first, for mercy's sake, get your reproductive bits snipped or removed. Because from the day your sprog is conceived to the day it dies, that sprog must come first. Sure, once it's an adult, you get part of your life back. But that takes at least two decades of love and dedication. It's a tremendous sacrifice.

The downside is, if you fuck up the job of raising your kids, you're not the only person affected. Your kid gets their hands on your gun collection and goes all Columbine on their high school; or grows up to be Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, and countless other people and their families and the taxpayer as well gets stuck with the cost of your kid's mental and emotional health, or lack thereof.

Today's collection of stories for your edification about raising your kids right should suffice to make you sufficiently gloomy about the whole business. Maybe you'll even decide to send money to Planned Parenthood or NARAL or any of the fine organizations that deal with health issues for women. Yes, the consequences of reproduction can be pretty bad. It should be a privilege that you have to get licensed for, or work towards, or something. For your delectation:

• When your kid prefers prison to home or school, we gotta wonder what the hell kinda useless parents and teachers/administrators they had;
  
  
• How on earth do you justify locking your kid up and starving them to death without a drink of water?
  
  
• This is a big reason why children should not have children. Not that age improves things.
  
  
• Nixzmary Brown — the poster child for horrendous child abuse cases. Prosecutors are adding a charge to the long list her mother will face, in the hope that it will increase their chances of a conviction.
  
  
• Who the hell raised these creatures to believe you can force love with a gun?
  
  
• The parents of this princess should have been spayed
  
  
• Negligent parenting can have fatal consequences
  
  
• Your children are your responsibility and yours alone. You can't hand them off to your druggie sister or anyone else just because you need a break.

So, why are we raising this issue today? Because the Bushies have just launched a sneak attack on women's reproductive freedom — and men's as well. Pertinent snippet:

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would force hospitals and clinics to hire people who refuse to provide the full range of reproductive options to women, denying women important health care information and access to basic forms of contraception.

Bush's new rule would deny federal funding to health care institutions that refuse to follow the new rule, limiting health care access when more Americans are struggling with rising health care costs. Further, this rule could allow health care providers, driven by their own personal ideology, to deny emergency contraception to sexual assault victims.

By redefining abortion to include the most common and effective methods of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, the Bush Administration is attempting to deprive basic contraceptive services to women around the country.

Unwanted children are at a much greater risk of abuse. This increases if the mother has a difficult pregnancy or delivery, or if the child has physical or developmental disabilities. Additional risk factors include poverty, premature delivery, lack of societal support, mental health problems in either parent, domestic violence, a history of child abuse for either parent, and poor coping skills.

Given that middle-class and upper-class women tend to be (a) educated; (b) able to procure contraception or abortion; (c) not at risk of poverty, lack of societal support, or poor coping skills, it is not unreasonable to assume that the impact of Emperor Jor Jee's law will fall on the already burdened working class and lower-middle-class women. So, if you have a shred of human decency or feeling, consider the plight of all those unwanted children Emperor Jor Jee is about to create for his puppet masters; and consider the plight of the women who will have to bear the consequences of caring, or failing to care, for such children. And do something.

Stumble It!